Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate
Case
•
[2016] FWCFB 6058
•19 SEPTEMBER 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2016] FWCFB 6058
[2016] FWCFB 6058
19 SEPTEMBER 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) sought to appeal a decision made by Vice President Watson of the Fair Work Commission, which had denied their application for an entry permit. The crux of the dispute was whether the CFMEU met the criteria to be considered a fit and proper person, a requirement for obtaining such a permit, given the union's past behaviours. The appeal was heard in the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission.
The central legal issues that the court had to resolve were whether the behaviours exhibited by the CFMEU, as outlined by Vice President Watson, disqualified them from being deemed a fit and proper person and, if so, whether these behaviours were sufficient grounds to deny their entry permit application. Additionally, the court needed to assess the application of the legal principles concerning what constitutes a fit and proper person under the relevant legislation.
The court found that the behaviours of the CFMEU, which included actions that were coercive, intimidatory, and contrary to the principles of fairness and good faith, were indeed significant enough to question their suitability as a fit and proper person. The court emphasised that maintaining the integrity of the building industry required adherence to ethical standards, and the behaviours in question were severe breaches of these standards. Consequently, the court upheld the decision of Vice President Watson, confirming that the CFMEU did not meet the necessary criteria and thus was not a fit and proper person for an entry permit. This ruling effectively maintained the denial of the permit application.
The central legal issues that the court had to resolve were whether the behaviours exhibited by the CFMEU, as outlined by Vice President Watson, disqualified them from being deemed a fit and proper person and, if so, whether these behaviours were sufficient grounds to deny their entry permit application. Additionally, the court needed to assess the application of the legal principles concerning what constitutes a fit and proper person under the relevant legislation.
The court found that the behaviours of the CFMEU, which included actions that were coercive, intimidatory, and contrary to the principles of fairness and good faith, were indeed significant enough to question their suitability as a fit and proper person. The court emphasised that maintaining the integrity of the building industry required adherence to ethical standards, and the behaviours in question were severe breaches of these standards. Consequently, the court upheld the decision of Vice President Watson, confirming that the CFMEU did not meet the necessary criteria and thus was not a fit and proper person for an entry permit. This ruling effectively maintained the denial of the permit application.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Employment & Labour Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Standing
-
Fit and Proper Person
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Application by Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, Australian Capital Territory Divisional Branch [2019] FWC 4087
Cases Citing This Decision
14
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Fair Work Commission
[2017] FWCFB 4141
Cases Cited
27
Statutory Material Cited
0
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, Victoria-Tasmania Divisional Branch
[2016] FWC 3322
Director of Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
[2015] FCA 1213
Veen v The Queen (No 2)
[1988] HCA 14